41–50 of 143 posts
Note the red message about how to run the installer on Windows despite the SmartScreen popup. Microsoft really needs to do something about the whole SmartScreen mess if even properly signed, popular and trusted open source tools like Krita require such a "how to get around the SmartScreen popup" note in their installation instructions.
Where do you see that? I can find it anywhere in the release notes or the Downloads-page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can actually install Krita from the Windows Store, it's the same version
Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.
Can you please for the love of Zeus make up your mind already? "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad!
So which is it? And more importantly, how is this any way worse than the common practise in Linux to install 3rd party software via some variation of "wget -O https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install | sudo bash" that won't show any warning whatsoever?
TL;DR There totally IS a reason to scare users away from installing random crap from the internet. And that reason is independent from operating systems or companies!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can actually install Krita from the Windows Store, it's the same version
Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.
Note the red message about how to run the installer on Windows despite the SmartScreen popup. Microsoft really needs to do something about the whole SmartScreen mess if even properly signed, popular and trusted open source tools like Krita require such a "how to get around the SmartScreen popup" note in their installation instructions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you want to run more versions side by side including betas, if you are a professional you don;t update your tools mid-project and pray it will be fine.
That's what Nix(OS) is for :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.
There absolutely is a reason. Microsoft's reason. Scaring users away from independent software distribution means more people will use the Windows Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.
> There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution. Can you please for the love of Zeus make up your mind already? "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! So which is it? And more importantly, how is this…
Yes.
> Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad!
Yes, but ONLY because they require you to create a Microsoft account. If you could use it without the account, then it would be fine.
Edit: I also tend to trust package maintainers for established distro's more than I trust Microsoft's QA. This is just me though so only partially relevant.
> So which is it? And more importantly, how is this any way worse than the common practise in Linux to install 3rd party software via some variation of "wget -O https://some.totally.trustworthy.website/install | sudo bash" that won't show any warning whatsoever?
(Windows Store) is worse than (random.exe)||(wget -O some.stupid.site/something.sh | sudo bash) is worse than (Proper package manager)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.
Have you never had a relative (usually your mom) install malware because they didn't know any better? Most people are not so tech savvy as those of us who frequent Hacker News.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are in the target group for Arch Linux. Highly recommended.
I don't see how. Arch still heavily relies on a repo and volunteer package maintainers.
While I can't see when the original blog post was submitted, I know this forum post was posted 2 hours ago. Are you sure you would benefit from updating even faster?
EDIT: In any case, you could use the AUR package that points directly to the git repo.
